Posted on 07/23/2025 12:25:08 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Yesterday, seated in the Oval Office beside a visibly stunned Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. —who thought he was attending a trade deal announcement and suddenly looked like he’d accidentally wandered into a political nuclear test— President Trump said the slowly boiling truth out loud.
He accused Barack Obama of treason. On camera. In front of foreign heads of state and his top cabinet!
Trump didn’t hedge, tease, or suggest. He boldly declared, “They have him stone cold. And it was President Obama. Barack Hussein Obama, he’s guilty. It’s not a question. This was treason.”
Even for Trump, it was a Rubicon moment— one that shattered a hundred years of presidential restraint. You’d think WaPo might start there. Or maybe lean into the “revenge!” theme they themselves built during the election.
It is impossible to believe Trump would’ve made that bold claim —so stark, so direct, so public— without knowing there’s a formal DOJ investigation already underway. Trump understands defamation law better than most lawyers. You don’t accuse a former president of treason in front of the entire world unless you have proof; maybe even something close to prosecutable evidence.
And that’s not exaggeration. Based on the strength of Trump’s words, and the solemnity of the venue, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn a grand jury is already hearing evidence.
What made Trump’s moment yesterday so Rubicon-like wasn’t the accusation itself. It was the irreversible commitment it represented. You don’t accuse a former president of treason —on camera, in the Oval Office, claiming you have the proof— and later shrug it off as political theater. Sorry, never mind!
There’s no walking this back. No “whoops; just asking questions” lifeline. Trump has cast the dice, and now the Fates are spinning up their thread—measuring, cutting, and preparing for the reckoning to come.
It’s not a political strategy. It is High Noon in Washington. Either Obama faces justice, or Trump’s presidency is buried beneath the weight of his own words.
It’s Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves. It’s that simple.
Barack Obama’s office responded to Trump’s Oval Office treason accusation by calling it… a “distraction.”
Not defamation. Not libel. Not even baseless. Just a distraction.
“Distraction” is a bizarre word to choose when a sitting president has just accused you of the most serious crime in the Constitution, on camera, from the Oval Office, with foreign heads of state watching and evidence allegedly in hand.
Where’s the angry denial? The threats of legal action? The righteous fury? You’d expect Obama’s office —following Trump’s example, a perfect setup— to unload both barrels, to drop the full weight of prestige, moral clarity, and legal firepower. But nope. Instead, we got Obama spokesweasel Patrick Rodenbush blinking in the sunlight and muttering something about a distraction.
I am not nearly bold enough to predict an Obama arrest. It seems unthinkable. But is it, really? It wouldn’t be historic if Obama were arrested, since they arrested Trump. An Obama conviction wouldn’t even be historic, since they criminally convicted Trump of mislabeling check stubs or something.
Think about this, hard. Trump and his allies have already been indicted, tried, and in some cases convicted for the exact same core crime now facing Barack Obama. Trump’s conviction in New York —though dressed up as a salacious, absurdly large-chested “business records” case— was explicitly framed by prosecutors as part of an election interference scheme.
Jack Smith’s federal case centered on election interference through obstruction and conspiracy. The Fulton County indictments in Georgia? Election interference. And Trump’s so-called “co-conspirators”—several of whom have already pleaded guilty in the “Fake Electors” case—were all charged with conspiracy to interfere with the outcome of a presidential election.
In short, the legal system has already established that election interference is a jailable offense for former presidents and their teams. The precedent is not a law school hypothetical. It’s already case law.
Will there be an arrest? Dunno. But maybe the better question is: why wouldn’t there be an arrest?
It happens and for the correct reasons, I changed my mind on Bush, Cheney, Romney, Ryan and others.
Oh, yeah. Me too. I can still “justify” my votes for these people based on the alternatives of Gore, Kerry, and Obama, but...that doesn’t mean I had to hold on to any respect for Bush or the others.
Where is/was Mrs Obama?
W/ the Obama cabal, we’re dealing with, at minimum, two sets of crimes:
<><>The “Russia Steele Dossier” created before the election
<><>the Russia Collusion Hoax that it morphed into after the election.
<><>egregiously intentional crimes
<><>targeted to obstruct lawful govt processes, done by high govt officials.
All of them should be indicted for “obstruction
of justice” and “seditious conspiracy” at a minimum..............
Nice summation
Kamala Harris explains the Russian interference strategy back in 2019:
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1947988462130565238?s=46
The Obama colluders picked on the wrong guy: Trump
understands defamation law better than most lawyers.
<><>He didn’t accuse an ex-president of treason in front of the entire world unless he had proof;
<><>maybe even prosecutable evidence.
<><>Based on the strength of Trump’s words, and the solemnity of the venue,
<><>a grand jury is probably already hearing evidence.
<><>What made Trump’s moment so Rubicon-like wasn’t the accusation itself.
<><>It was the irreversible commitment it represented.
<><>You don’t accuse a former president of treason —on camera,
<><>and charge him w/ seditious conspiracy
<><>only to hear it shrugged off as “political theater.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.